Make DACA the incentive to fully, completely, and permanently secure the borders

The popular conundrum for most conservatives addressing DACA’s eventual legislative replacement is that the 800,000 “DREAMers” can’t be “punished” for their parents’ lawlessness. Many of them are good, productive, patriotic Americans who just want to live like those of us who were either born here or came into the country legally. We can have a heart, right?

There are three problems with DACA that I detailed on Conservative Haven. Those three problems are that the original executive order was likely unconstitutional, there have been many potential legislative fixes that should have been fought for rather than dismissed with the stroke of a pen, and lawlessness was being rewarded (which means future lawlessness will be encouraged).

For these three glaring reasons, I’ve been resolute since it was initially signed in my stance that it should be rescinded and never touched again. It’s unfortunate that President Obama’s actions gave hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants hope that even he knew would eventually be taken away (remember, he said it was a temporary fix). It’s even more unfortunate that rescinding it without a legislative replacement would mean these 800,000 people would be subject to potential deportation, but if we’re to be a sovereign nation we must enforce the law of the land. That law offers legal ways for people to live and work in the country. It’s not fair to people born American citizens or those who immigrated to the country legally (of which I am one) to compete with people who, based upon the law of the land, should not be in the country in the first place.

To be clear, I have absolutely nothing against DREAMers themselves. As so many have pointed out, these are people who were children brought to the country illegally. It’s not their fault and I lay no blame on them, but they should not be rewarded because their parents broke the law. The analogy we see on social media says letting DREAMers stay would be like letting a kid keep a bicycle their parents stole for them just because they’re innocent of the crime itself. Even if they didn’t do the stealing, they still have to give the bike back.

It’s a tough situation. Nobody wants to be the bad guy (though some of us are willing to stand by the truth and the Constitution even if it makes us seem bad to some). As such, it’s pretty clear that there will be a legislative solution to allow DREAMers to stay.

I’m okay with that as long as there’s a very clear trade-off. Allowing them to stay will have consequences. As Streiff over at RedState pointed out, “The solution looks easy: give 800,000 illegals a clear path to citizenship. But what about the next 800,000 that will follow?” To mitigate the damage of allowing DREAMers to stay, the GOP absolutely must leverage the replacement legislation with unambiguous solutions to the rest of our illegal immigration problems.

Before we get to some of the potential solutions, I want to note something about President Trump. I’ve been mixed on his approach to DACA. First, I applauded him, declaring Trump to end DACA the right way for the right reasons. Then, I felt like I’d just been punked when he Tweeted his willingness to “revisit” DACA if Congress failed.

Now, I’m starting to wonder if this is all part of the plan. I seriously doubt it, but I’m holding onto hope that he and GOP leadership are coming at this with a parley in mind. Based upon the GOP’s track record and Trump’s strange Tweet, I’m skeptical. I’m not alone:

With all that said, here are the things that need to be attached to a bipartisan DACA replacement bill:

Criminals get deported. Period.

I don’t care how many dreams a DREAMer has. If he or she has committed a felony, they’re out. I’m not talking about parking tickets, but I’m also not talking about just the violent criminals. This must be viewed as an unearned privilege which means they need to be exemplary legal non-citizens if that’s to be their designation.

Build the wall.

This should be a nobrainer. In a perfect world the “wall” would be a technological security apparatus rather than a physical wall. By using drones, sensors, and detectors, a virtual wall would be more effective, less expensive to build and maintain, and wouldn’t require the obtuse use of eminent domain. Sadly, the wall that President Trump has in mind is as much a permanent monument for his legacy as it is a security measure, so it’ll be an actual wall. Fine. Let’s build it.

Ongoing applications, productivity criteria, and an end goal of proper legal immigration.

Amnesty and pathway to citizenship should be taken off the table, at least in their traditional forms. DREAMers as well as those here on work visas should be allowed to stay but must continue to reapply periodically with job and housing status included. If their intention is to stay indefinitely, they must go through the same process as someone applying to live and work here coming legally from another country. Just because they were brought here illegally doesn’t mean they get special treatment.

No “chain migration” allowed.

The argument that DREAMers are the only beneficiaries of their status must be put to practice. If they choose to stay in this country, they cannot then turn around and bring their family (some of whom broke the law to get them here in the first place) with them. Sounds harsh, right? The phrase “chain migration” is often associated with white supremacists but it’s a real problem despite the association. We have to address this issue or the argument used by defenders of DACA suddenly loses its basis in reality.

Sudden cutoff.

One of the biggest problems with DACA is that it encourages people to make the arduous journey across the border in hopes their children can stay. After President Obama signed it, we saw a spike in crossings, particularly from families. This will repeat itself if there’s a window of opportunity. We need that window to close suddenly. No warning. The legislation should include an immediate point in time in which potential DREAMers must make themselves known. Once the date passes, the window of opportunity is shut. No need to encourage a blitz on the border.

No DREAMers in sanctuary cities.

As a Federalist, I do not like the federal government strong-arming cities or states. As a staunch opponent of sanctuary cities, I would love any lawful incentive to make them change their minds. Part of the DACA replacement should include a controversial component: no DREAMer status will be allowed to those living in sanctuary cities. The logic is a stretch but it works: In order to coordinate the proper monitoring and enforcement of DREAMers’ ongoing status, a city must be willing to work with those who enforce the law at the national level.

If Trump is truly the master of the deal and if the GOP is serious about getting something done on immigration and border security, they’ll figure out a way to make this palatable to the Democrats. If all they can muster is a legislative DACA replacement without attaching lawful components to help solve bigger problems, what we’ll see in the coming months is another Republican retreat. They have the leverage. It’s time for them to figure out how to use it.

The Liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns. Part I

The Left can’t argue that you don’t need a gun because the government won’t turn tyrannical while threatening that the government will turn tyrannical.

In what has to be the ultimate and game-changing tweet Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) threatened nuclear annihilation to anyone who refuses to give up their right of self-defense. The ensuing ‘fallout’ seeing him resort to damage control tactic of saying that thermonuclear gun confiscation was just a ‘joke’. After all, Who hasn’t chuckled at the prospect of the government going tyrannical with an H-bomb, One can easily see the bumper stickers now: Vote Swalwell 2020- or I will nuke you’re ……

One of the Left’s favourite little tactics is to accuse those of the Pro-Liberty right of being ‘terrorists’ as their usual method of demonising their opponents. Take note of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word Terrorist:

Adjective [attributive] Unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

OriginLate 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

The long train of demands for gun confiscation.

Perhaps Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell doesn’t realise his tweet was the ultimate in the listing of demands for gun confiscation by the Liberty grabber Left. A long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, as Thomas Jefferson termed it in the Declaration of Independence. That his erstwhile ‘joke’ he, Pier Morgan and others have made is the nuclear straw than broke the camels back. They, along with all the other Leftists who have demanded gun confiscation have initiated a sea change in the debate over the common sense human right of self-defense.

The old approach by the Left that denied that confiscation was their ultimate goal.

It used to be that the Left would hide behind a mask of support of the 2nd amendment. Never mind that each move they made was towards their final solution to the gun problem. Their tired refrain to most arguments about guns was that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’ or some variation thereof. This was a way to short-circuit the debate to one of incremental or ‘progressive’ steps negating any of their ill effects.

Pointing out that some new law would punish 120 million gun owners for the deeds of a few criminals would see the abject denial of ‘no one is being punished’ or ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

Mention that a new restriction on freedom infringing on the 2nd amendment and those who pretend to be Liberal on the Left would answer back ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’.

Talk about Intergalactic Background Checks [or Universal, enhanced or ‘Common sense’] would place government control over your personal property while acting as a stepping stone to confiscation would be met with the assertion that you must believe in conspiracy theories and that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

This arduous task was under taken to prove a point, that the Left has dropped the mask on this subject. But it has also revealed a disturbing trend over the years. What began a few years ago as few and far between calls for gun confiscation has morphed into far more strident and frequent demands. Demands that were only made in obscure far-Left online publications have found their way into the mainstream and supposedly Liberal media sources. The rate on the number of demands made per ‘serious crisis’ have accelerated to the ultimate demand made by Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell. This has manifestly changed the debate in favour of the Pro-Liberty Conservative side.

What began as mere calls to amend the Constitution – removing a fundamental human right in the process – or banning certain ‘types’ of guns. Have become threats to turn over all of our guns or to ‘comprise’ and lose some of them with incremental steps.

Then the Left became impatient, unable to restrain it’s ‘collective’ hatred of Liberty.

For at least the past several years, to say that those two talking points [or a variation thereof] were a complete and total lie would be an understatement of epic proportions. But even now that hasn’t stopped Leftists from denying the obvious.

But now the Nuke comment has changed all of that, everyone is now seeing that the Left has been making their demands for gun confiscation in every corner of their echo chamber. This is part of the reason many have undertaken the task of documenting these demands such as Here, Here and of course here.

Their open demands for gun confiscation and for the suppression of other types of Liberty have changed the dynamic. It is now a question of Liberty versus tyranny – with the Left being on the side of governmental oppression to tune of nuclear annihilation if one does not comply.

In part II we will examine the debate in terms of the new paradigm of Liberty versus Tyranny.

Related

3 migrant caravan claims Jim Acosta made to President Trump that have been debunked… by the migrant caravans

CNN’s Jim Acosta has been at the center of the news cycle for 12 days. It’s not his reporting that landed him there. He’s the center of attention after the Secret Service suspended his hard pass to the White House. His pass is back and most seem to be moving on from the story. But something has been lost in the mix. The statements he made while badgering the President on November 7 were spoken with authority and certainty.

Less than two weeks later, all three of his claims have been proven wrong by the migrant caravans themselves.

“They’re hundred of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away.”

Around 3,000 migrants arrived in the last few days, doubling the total number of migrants waiting to be processed at the San Ysidro border crossing to 6000. Thousands more are expected in the coming days.

More than 500 criminals are traveling with the migrant caravan that’s massed on the other side of a San Diego border crossing, homeland security officials said Monday afternoon.

The revelation was made during a conference call with reporters, with officials asserting that “most of the caravan members are not women and children”. They claimed the group is mostly made up of single adult or teen males and that the women and children have been pushed to the front of the line in a bid to garner sympathetic media coverage.

By now, any thinking person regardless of political ideology should realize Jim Acosta is an idiot. In the short time he held the mic at the press conference, he made three debunked statements. Journalists are supposed to expose the truth, not spread lies.

Related

Fred Savage owns Deadpool in Once Upon a Deadpool trailer

I’ll admit, I didn’t even know this was a thing. When I heard about it, I assumed it was a spoof, probably put out by Ryan Reynolds to catch a few Christmas laughs. I was wrong.

Once Upon a Deadpool is a new edit of Deadpool 2 made with a PG-13 rating. Fox has been pushing for Reynolds to do a PG-13 version for over a decade, but the star has refused until now. He had two requirements. First, he Fox to donate money from the movie to a charity of Reynold’s choice. Which did he choose? A charity Fox is referring to as “Fudge Cancer,” though the charity’s real name would be better served in the R-rated version of Deadpool.

The second requirement is that Reynolds needed permission to kidnap Fred Savage.

Reynolds got both of his wishes and Once Upon a Deadpool was born. It’s due for a limited engagement next month.